<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (7) TMI 456 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345344</link>
    <description>Discount expressly excluded from turnover under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act could not be added to taxable turnover, because the statutory definition and Explanation II(ii) to Section 2(41) do not treat cash or other discounts as part of turnover. The assessment was based on an erroneous comparison of overall sale and purchase figures rather than the unit sale price against the unit purchase price, making the discount addition unsustainable. The High Court also held that alternative remedy did not bar writ interference where the assessment order contained apparent errors, relied on provisions not attracted on the admitted facts, and lacked the factual basis required for action under Section 24. The assessment was set aside to the extent of the discount addition and remanded for fresh determination.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Mar 2018 15:35:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=481193" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 456 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345344</link>
      <description>Discount expressly excluded from turnover under the Tamil Nadu VAT Act could not be added to taxable turnover, because the statutory definition and Explanation II(ii) to Section 2(41) do not treat cash or other discounts as part of turnover. The assessment was based on an erroneous comparison of overall sale and purchase figures rather than the unit sale price against the unit purchase price, making the discount addition unsustainable. The High Court also held that alternative remedy did not bar writ interference where the assessment order contained apparent errors, relied on provisions not attracted on the admitted facts, and lacked the factual basis required for action under Section 24. The assessment was set aside to the extent of the discount addition and remanded for fresh determination.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jun 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=345344</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>